First we describe our course proposals for the 2003 SIGGRAPH conference.
Next, responding to changes in conference content and to a request from
SIGGRAPH President Alain Chesnais, we made a proposal of how the Public
Policy Program should fit into the structure of the annual conferences. The
issues discussed in our tutorials and in our BOF's affect all computer users
and need a designated place in the conference.

Broadband internet access becomes more and more important as both web use
and as file sizes increase. Bob Ellis, with the assistance of Myles Losch,
proposes a policy statement regarding broadband access.

Finally, our guest submission is from Sandy Ressler, member of the Board of
Directors of the Web3D Consortium. He discusses intellectual property
issues and the development of the Web3D Consortium Standards.

As in recent years we have submitted multiple proposals for policy events at
the conference. We had to drop our plans for a panel proposal when it was
announced that there would not be a panels program in 2003. I also decided
not to submit a proposal for a third course (on broadband and digital
television) primarily because of the work load required to develop the
course if the proposal was accepted.

As a major expansion I decided it was time to expand the introductory course
from a tutorial to a half-day course. Attendee response indicated that
there was a strong desire to see more time devoted to the subject. We also
submitted a proposal for a tutorial on copyright based on the 2002 tutorial.
One of the speakers, Dan Burk, indicated an interest in adding software
patents to the course. I felt the only way we could do that was to expand
it to a half-day course. But the early feedback from the courses committee
on adding software patents was not positive, so I dropped the idea.

We will also have our usual BOF and committee meeting, so once again we are
planning on a significant presence at the conference.

In the SIGGRAPH 2002 summary in the November column, I mentioned that
ACM SIGGRAPH President Alain Chesnais suggested I make a proposal regarding
the place of policy activities at the annual conference. In response, the
following proposal was submitted to the SIGGRAPH Executive and Conference
Advisory Committees, but the EC decided not to impose a mandatory policy
program on the conference.

SIGGRAPH Technology Program and the Annual Conference: A Proposal
Bob EllisNovember 2002

Summary

A proposal is presented to have the SIGGRAPH Technology Policy Program's
activities at the annual conference be a joint responsibility of the EC and
CAG. The EC would insure that there is room in the conference program for
policy events and the CAG/Conference Committees would insure quality content
of the policy events.

Background

The SIGGRAPH Technology Policy Program existed for several years without a
significant presence at the annual conference. We held a BOF, a committee
meeting and talked up policy, but we weren't represented in the formal
program.

Recently this has changed. In 2001 we had a tutorial course and a panel.
In 2002 we had two tutorial courses. All were highly successful in our
terms. Attendance was small (100-150 attendees) by SIGGRAPH Conference
standards, but the audience was enthusiastic and passionate about the
issues. Another measure of success was that our annual BOFs that were held
immediately after one of the formal program events saw attendance jump from
earlier BOFs 1-2 to 25-30 people.

A Problem

But there's a problem. In 2002 proposals for a third course and a panel
were rejected. The course rejection was due to space in the program and was
not a content or quality issue. The panel proposal had a problem (no
computer graphics panelists) and the rejection was reasonable. I've taken
steps (bringing in a computer graphics veteran to serve as panel organizer)
but the lack of a panel program for the 2003 conference made this move moot.
(I'm looking at the 2003 Graphics Conversations venue but this probably
isn't the sort of program that would be attractive to important panelists.)

So the problem is that the Technology Policy Program can generate more
quality content that serves a small, but important group, in the CG
community than there is room for in the conference. Also, the SIGGRAPH EC
by supporting the Technology Policy Program has indicated that it feels this
is an important topic. We can write columns for Computer Graphics forever,
but nothing has the impact of having events on the formal conference
program.

One aspect that isn't a problem is the requirement for proposals and review.
This is essential to insure the quality.

Policy events have modest space and AV requirements. Rooms capable of
holding 100-200 people and the ability to show PowerPoint slides are about
the only requirements.

The Proposal

As a long-time SIGGRAPH conference person (Co-chair SIGGRAPH '80, Vice-Chair
for Conference Planning) I'm about the last person to suggest that the EC
issue any but the broadest mandates for the conference program. But the
Technology Policy Program is somewhat unique. It is an activity that
attracts a small but enthusiastic and passionate audience. The SIGGRAPH EC
believes it is an important function for the organization. It doesn't
compete well for attention compared to events such as the special events of
the 2002 conference (Yoda and Beyond: Creating the Digital Cast of Star Wars
Episode II, The Fate of Play: Game Industry Revolutionaries Speak Out and
Spider-Man: Behind the Mask)!

I propose that the EC (in consultation with the CAG) adopt a policy that
mandates some level of technology policy be present in each year's
conference program, subject to review of content for quality and
appropriateness by the relevant conference committee. The policy should
take into consideration the characteristics listed in the previous
suggestion.

Such a policy would insure that the growing set of conference attendees
interested in policy activities would find useful material in the conference
program. It would also provide an important venue and publicity for
SIGGRAPH's interest and support for policy activities. Review by conference
committees would insure that the high standards of conference content would
be maintained.

Because of the importance to computer graphics of widespread adoption of
broadband Internet access and my frustration with policy makers who see the
Internet primarily as a means for the delivery of entertainment services,
I've been working on a policy statement. The goal of this activity is to
provide USACM with direction and urge that it use its presence in Washington
to bring this view to the attention of policy makers.

The availability and adoption of broadband (high-speed) Internet service is
of critical importance to the computing and telecommunications industries
and the country. Graphically intensive applications such as remote medical
diagnosis, enhanced
e-commerce, personal data exchanges (e.g., sharing family photos and
videos), delivery of entertainment and gaming, and augmented user interfaces
are highly dependent on the widespread deployment of broadband.

Therefore, we suggest the following principles related to these services:

The Internet is primarily a communication medium:

The Internet is an essential medium for the delivery of electronic mail,
privately produced visual material, commercial exchange, education/training,
academic discourse and health, research, and political information. For
example, the opinion of the special three-judge federal court in
Philadelphia that first rejected the (1996) Communications Decency Act
called the Internet "... the most participatory form of mass speech yet
developed." -- as lately proved yet again by the popularity of the
self-publishing web logging (blogging) phenomenon.

The "killer app" for broadband is not the delivery of movies:

We believe the application that will induce most people to move to broadband
is the personal sharing of pictures (and eventually videos). With digital
photography becoming widely available, many people would like to share their
photos with friends and family. The easiest way to do this is by email
attachments (as opposed to setting up a website, etc.), but a large set of
photos would soon result in long uploads and downloads via dial-up, even
when transmitted at typical display-screen resolutions. Of course many
people would probably like to send high-resolution pictures so the
recipients could print them. If this was successful, we believe sharing
home videos would be next.

While the sharing of personally created visual material may be the
application that gets individuals to initially adopt broadband, there are
many other uses that will be discovered after broadband is widely adopted.
Foremost among these may be the transmission of high-quality medical images
to under served areas (after broadband implementation issues to these areas
are solved). Other uses likely to be discovered after adoption include
online/interactive gaming, accessing entertainment such as motion pictures,
and education/training.

Security, privacy and reliability:

The always-on, high-speed nature of broadband Internet services make such
connections attractive to people looking to break into a computer. In order
for the public to be able to use these services without jeopardizing the
security and privacy of their computers and personal data, it is critical
that providers make available easy to use and understand facilities (e.g.,
firewalls) to protect their customers.

In keeping with the Internet's primary use as a medium for critical
communication in many forms, such services must maintain high availability.
Unlike entertainment, the key uses of the Internet are not optional and
users will not utilize these services unless they are reliably available.

An important challenge is the development and use of quantifiable measures
that provide customers and policy makers with a solid basis for comparing
provider performance.

Affordability:

It is becoming clear that most potential customers will not pay a
significant premium for broadband. Before there is widespread adoption,
prices must be in the range of $20.00 or so per month. Current dial up
customers who have a second phone line for Internet access might be willing
to pay more because they would be able to discontinue the second phone line.

The best way to provide affordable services is to have meaningful
competition among several (more than two) providers. The challenge here is
to reduce regulation and constraints on providers while guaranteeing an
appropriate level of consumer protection.

IP/DRM:

We believe that the music and motion picture industries current efforts in
forcing adoption of technical and legal measures to protect their current
business models will never be successful. Broadband offers many
opportunities to adopt new business models that will not alienate their
customers and provide healthy revenue and profits. This was proposed in a
Dec. 2, 2002 editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

Internet deregulation and common carriage:

We believe that a competition-friendly environment is the best way to
increase the availability and adoption of broadband Internet services.
But the interests of the public must be maintained. In particular the right
of the public to engage in protected speech and have their voices heard is
critical.

Dial-up telephone service is designated as a common carrier service. This
means that the providers must transmit in an expeditious and
nondiscriminatory manner all messages presented to them. In exchange, the
service providers have immunity from criminal and civil prosecution and
lawsuits regarding the messages they carry.

We believe the solution to providing protection for speech over all Internet
services is to make them common carrier services. Note that this may impact
the current terms of service used by many service providers that attempt to
forbid a broad range of unwanted online behavior. These terms include, but
are not limited to: bans on "flaming", harassment, IPR violations, open mail
relays, reverse engineering, bandwidth "hogging", malicious conduct, etc.
Often, the supposed harm is to non-customers of that ISP. We believe some
items (such as bandwidth limitations) could be built into the contract,
while others (such as control over content) could not.

Note that common carriage does not mean that all customers would have to be
treated equally. Different levels of service (such as bandwidth
availability) could be provided based on price. But for any given level of
service all customers (including information providers) would have to be
treated equally.

Recent concerns about national security raise special issues. The
investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those engaged in illegal
activity by law enforcement acting under court supervision should be
preserved while protecting the rights of law abiding citizens. ISPs should
never hinder the delivery of a message or communication even if they suspect
it to be associated with a criminal or potential terrorist act, unless the
delivery of the message would result in physical injury or death to a person
or persons or create economic harm. Nothing should mandate that ISPs use
technical means to read messages (i.e. sniffers or search applications) to
look for key words or phrases except under strict court supervision.

Intellectual Property Issues and the Web3D Consortium Standards Development

By Sandy ResslerNational Institute of Standards and Technologyand member of Board of Directors Web3D Consortium

Let's face it, Intellectual Property (IP) is a royal pain but seems to be
necessary. First, note that the opinions expressed here are solely the
author's and do not in any way represent the author's employer or the Web3D
Consortium. In addition, any mention of commercial products or companies is
not meant as an implied endorsement by the author or his employer.

In particular let's examine the role of IP issues as they effect standards
development and subsequently the deployment of products which support the
standard. The purpose of this article is to highlight some pitfalls when
considering the inclusion of IP in formal standards and to discuss these
issues in the context of one organization's (Web3D Consortium) history as
viewed by an inside participant.

Some Brief History

The Web3D Consortium (originally known as the VRML Consortium) is the
organization responsible for shepherding the VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling
Language) standard through the ISO standards-making process. Many people
(the "VRML community") were responsible for the development of VRML.
Significantly, Silicon Graphics (SGI) put forward Open Inventor as a file
format to serve as the basis of VRML,. Open Inventor was selected after an
RFP process, . For an excellent history see "The Development of the VRML 97
International Standard by Rikk Carey, George Carson and Richard F. Puk
(http://www.gscassociates.com/pubs/VRML_P1C.html) SGI's donation of Open
Inventor IP was a major accelerator to VRML's development. Conversely SGI's
ownership of IP (patents) for user interface aspects of CosmoPlayer (SGI's
VRML Browser) was a stumbling block to the release of CosmoPlayer source
into any type of Open Source licensing after SGI sold off it's interest in
it's web graphics division (CosmoSoftware...RIP).

Recently X3D, the next generation web graphics standard, was forwarded to
ISO for balloting as an FCD (Final Committee Draft). This is almost the
final stage before completion as an ISO standard. X3D uses XML to encode the
VRML scene graph and more importantly brings the power of the whole family
of XML standards to bear on web based 3D graphics. Significantly there are
no IP encumbrances in X3D.

Policy

The Web3D Consortium has consistently held to a rigorous policy of requiring
contributors of technology to declare any potential IP encumbrances up
front. Recently the W3C has gone through a lengthy process of debate and
review and moved farther towards openness with a "Royalty-Free Patent
Policy". During over a year of contentious debate the W3C considered making
a major shift in policy by adopting a RAND (Reasonable And Non
Discriminatory) patent framework. This approach was rejected in favor of a
simpler more open framework. It is instructive to read the minutes from
meetings of these discussions; for an example see W3C Working Draft of
the work in progress at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-20021114/

If the RAND policy had been adopted it would have opened up the possibility
that patented technology could be part of official W3C standards and that
licensees would have to pay. The Web3D Consortium officially (see
http://web3d.org/aboutus/ipr.html) has a RAND policy but has yet to include
any patented technology into its standards. (Note that W3C standards are
called recommendations and do not have the legal imprimatur of ISO
standards, although they are widely used.)

What is a Standard Anyway?

Strict IP policies that hold technologies close to the source may at first
sound quite fair. Businesses invest resources and deserve to recoup their
costs. Standards, however, are not products. Let's take a small step back
and look at exactly what it is that standards organizations are trying to
accomplish and what a standard is.

What is the purpose of a standard and why do companies and individuals
expend their resources to participate in standards development?
Individuals, not affiliated with large companies often participate in
standards development for three reasons: a desire to contribute to the
technical community, to participate in a project larger than an individual
can do alone, and for the "fame". These are quite similar to the motivations
expressed by people who participate in Open Source projects.

Companies send people to participate for business reasons that include
getting a step ahead of the competition and making sure that technology
moves in a direction compatible with corporate directions. If a company can
get its IP included as part of a formal standard, all the better (from the
corporate point of view).

Standards, generally, are specifications of open technologies. They are
meant to help build an infrastructure upon which industries can thrive. The
incorporation of company specific IP is clearly an impediment to the open
nature of an infrastructure. Of course, infrastructure does not have to be
open, it can be company specific, resulting in a monopoly or hegemony.
History clearly shows that the more open an infrastructure the more likely
it will be adopted. The open nature of networking standards such as TCP/IP
and others resulted in the creation of the Internet. And the blossoming of
the world wide web followed from the open nature of the http protocol and
URL specification.

Conversely, look at the electronic book industry; it barely exists and a
balkanized set of proprietary standards has prevented a large amount of
content from being put into place. An interesting counter example is the
near universal ubiquity of Macromedia's Flash and Adobe's PDF.
Both of these formats met a consumer need and there was no standard to fill
the functionality vacuum. SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) is the evolving W3C
standard that is playing in the same domain as Flash, but in my opinion,
isn't a potential threat to Flash. Flash is a fabulous authoring tool and
SWF is the Flash file format. In the ideal world one might see Flash
continuing with SVG taking over as the file format. The advantage to a
company like Macromedia would be the likelihood of more 3rd party products
that can manipulate SVG increasing the value of the Flash authoring tool and
broadening its appeal.

Finally standards have longevity and are suitable for archival storage.
Standards are not subject to the financial misfortunes of companies. No
matter who disappears or goes bankrupt, HTML, XML and X3D will remain viable
specifications. Archival storage is incredibly important.

Downside

An example of maintaining a hard line against the inclusion of patented
technologies were the events that occurred approximately four years ago with
the submission by IBM of a geometry compression technology for VRML. IBM
responded to a Request for Proposals from the VRML Consortium. One of the
missing elements of VRML and X3D is the lack of a good quality geometry
compression technology. IBM submitted a good technology that met the
consortium's technical requirements; however the technology was patented and
ultimately the two organizations never came to any type of agreement on how
to include the technology in the standard. IBM in no way shoulders any blame
for this; expectations for both sides were not clearly expressed up front.

When companies invest in technologies and obtain patents, as they should to
satisfy their shareholders, they quite naturally expect to recoup some of
their investments. However inclusion of their patented technology into an
international standard could bring the companies a longer term benefit than
simply a licensing deal. Inclusion of patented technology with royalty free
terms would allow companies to have their technology included as part of an
infrastructure and receive the "blessing" of the standards making
organization, benefiting the company and the public.

The MPEG-4 Issue

One of the most difficult areas the Web3D Consortium has had to deal with is
in its relationship with another ISO committee, the group developing MPEG
(Motion Picture Experts Group). MPEG-4 is the next generation of video
compression and distribution standards that have come from the phenomenally
successful MPEG committee. The MPEG group has been responsible for MP3,
which has revolutionized the music industry, and MPEG-2 which has made DVDs
the most rapidly diffused technology in the history of consumer electronics.
Clearly MPEG has had an immensely positive impact on the economy. MPEG,
unlike VRML, contains many patented technologies.
There is in fact a company, MPEG LA (MPEG License Authority
http://www.mpegla.com/), whose business is to license and organize the
patents inside the MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 standards. Make no mistake; this is
legally very complicated stuff. The MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio (as of
Jan 1, 2003) contains 95 patents (in multiple countries) for 47
technologies. In 2002 MPEG-LA formulated a licensing policy for MPEG-4 which
includes broadcast fees which caused a great deal of controversy (see
"Anger greets MPEG-4 licensing scheme"
http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20020131S0061 ). Key contributors to the
MPEG-4 standard, notably Apple and Sun Microsystems, vehemently objected to
the policy but now everything seems to be sorted out. However, the long
delay in formulating a licensing policy (nearly 2 years), left a very bad
taste in the mouths of developers (see "Licensing decision ends MPEG-4
tiff": http://news.com.com/2100-1023-944051.html ) . There is currently an effort
in a joint ITU/ISO group to develop a royalty free baseline for video, as a
response to these problems (see "Terms of Reference for Joint Video Team
(JVT) Activities"
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/jvt/JVTToR.pdf. It remains to be
seen if the IP issues have been resolved enough to make MPEG-4 a success or
not.

Going back to the issue of the Web3D Consortium, one might rightly ask what
does video have to do with 3D graphics? As it turns out MPEG-4 also contains
the ability to represent a 3D scene graph and it can represent content that
places video on 3D surfaces, which should enable novel content. The original
MPEG-4 3D scene graph was contributed to MPEG-4 from the Web3D Consortium,
and is essentially the key Nodes (a node is the primary data structure in
VRML files) of VRML. One issue the Web3D Consortium is concerned about is
that MPEG-4 not simply take the VRML nodes, change the fields a little and
then have someone slap a patent on it. This has not happened yet; however
it is a concern. In addition some members of the Web3D Consortium are afraid
to even look at the MPEG-4 documents out of concern that they will be
legally "tainted" (have proprietary knowledge) which could potentially
subject them and the VRML/X3D standards to legal action. All things
considered it's an ugly situation. There is however some hope. One good
point of intersection and for potential interoperability is via one portion
of MPEG-4 called XMT. XMT is an XML encoding of BIFS (BInary Format for
Scenes). There remains the potential for the creation of translators, via
XSLT, to convert between X3D and XMT. Of course the underlying
representations must be semantically compatible for this to work and while
there is much in common, there has also been some divergence. If the
marketplace demands some interoperability then it does seem likely that
useful tools can and will be built.

Moving Forward

The path ahead seems to be getting clearer, at least for my brain. The
inclusion of patented technology may be necessary to get the best
technology. Standards however are not simply about codifying the best
Technology; they are about creating enabling infrastructures. The open
nature of standards is even more valuable than producing the best
technology. In addition it is the customer's requirements and desire to use
the standard, or not, that is the final arbiter. Open, royalty-free
standards are the best approach to enabling infrastructures. In the long run
this approach results in technology that has the potential for being widely
adopted. It is the adoption and wide use of a standard that makes money for
business not the inclusion of encumbered technologies.